The discussion below corresponds to the seven domains identified in the Section on “Approach to data collection”, page 6, and the review in Chapters 3 and 4. Cross references to the relevant TOR checklist items for each domain are provided as footnotes. The final TOR checklist item, relating to improvements in the CCA process, is dealt with in the next chapter. The full set of the TOR checklist items is listed in Appendix I.
In total, 50 CCA reports and 25 PRSPs have been reviewed, from a total of 106 CCA reports and 47 PRSPs available on 1 September 2002. All regions are proportionally represented, and over one-third of the reports are from least developed countries (LDCs). Small and large countries, both in geographical size and population, are represented and there is a wide range in the extent to which food insecurity and poverty occur. This implies that the sample reviewed represents a wide range of country circumstances.
Most of the CCA reports were completed in the 1990s. The majority of the CCA reports were the first ones produced, while 6 percent were a second version. For two-thirds of the country studies in the sample, the Development Assistant Framework of the UN (UNDAF) was completed before 1 September 2002. In total, 47 PRSPs were available, of which one-third were full versions and the remainder were interim PRSPs. Interim PRSPs are preliminary documents that serve as a ‘roadmap’ for the preparation of a full PRSP[4].
The CCA report preparation process was thus well established, whereas the preparation of PRSPs could be considered in its starting phase.
Several stakeholder groups participated in the preparation of the country reports, but detailed information on the extent and nature of the involvement of the various parties is absent in most cases.
The information collected from the reports shows that UN organizations (100 percent in CCA reports and 48 percent in PRSPs), government bodies (78 percent in CCA reports and 100 percent in PRSPs) as well as NGOs (66 percent in CCA reports and 76 percent in PRSPs) were widely involved in the preparation of the documents. As far as UN involvement is concerned, FAO is referred to in 68 percent of the CCA reports and in one PRSP (Nicaragua). The involvement of donors (40 percent in both CCA reports and PRSPs), the private sector (28 percent in CCA reports and 52 percent in PRSPs), and universities (16 percent in CCA reports and 28 percent in PRSPs) is limited.
Report preparation was thus predominantly a combined government-UN affair, with other institutions only participating in a limited way.
Improving food security and reducing vulnerability requires exact definitions, but only 28 percent of the CCA reports and 8 percent of the PRSPs provide a definition either of food insecurity and vulnerability or of food security. The definitions used are primarily associated with food availability and access, whereas other aspects such as utilization, stability and sustainability are less often addressed.
Poverty is defined in only 24 percent of the CCA reports and 44 percent of the PRSPs. However, this lack of definition is compensated by an almost universal use of poverty lines to demarcate poverty. When these are described, it is usually in terms related to food consumption, like calorie intake, food, breadbasket and proportion of income spent on food, and thus relate to food security issues.
Development priorities are stated in all reports, but generally not in a separate priority section that would allow a ranking of all development priorities. Food insecurity and vulnerability is stated as a priority in two-thirds of the CCA reports and in one-fifth of the PRSPs. In more than half of these country studies, food insecurity and vulnerability is mentioned in the context of a broader development priority, such as poverty reduction, equity, or human development. Poverty reduction is stated as a development priority in half of the CCA reports and two-thirds of the PRSPs.
Thus, development priorities concerning food insecurity and vulnerability are mainly found in CCA reports, whereas those concerning poverty reduction are mostly present in PRSPs. Given the background of the respective CCA and PRSP processes, this seems understandable, yet it should not be forgotten that all PRSPs deal with the same countries as the CCA reports. The respective preparation processes for CCA reports and PRSPs apparently lead to a certain bias in recording national priorities.
References to data sources in the country studies are scarce, and, where they appear, mostly refer to secondary data, with governments and UN organizations cited as the major sources. Data collection methods are barely discussed, and the general conclusion is that no insight is provided into the reliability and representativeness of the data stated, for both CCA reports and PRSPs.
This general conclusion is also applicable to the data relevant to food insecurity issues. In some studies, specific mention is made only of surveys related to agricultural production, household income and expenditure, anthropometry, food consumption and health.
Participatory and rapid assessment data collection methods are explicitly mentioned in 24 percent of the CCA reports and in 32 percent of the PRSPs. Details of purpose and coverage are generally absent, which precludes an assessment of their contribution to the total data presented in the country studies.
Little information is stated on the country-specific administrative structures, and few data are presented in a geographically and administratively disaggregated form. A further important omission refers to the near absence of time series that would enable an assessment of the dynamics of food security issues.
Disaggregation of poverty (according to age, region, gender, socio-economic group, rural versus urban, or administrative structure) is more often made in the country studies, but generally only for one or a few indicators.
The general lack of disaggregated data and of time series has serious implications for the validity, relevance and effectiveness of the country reports with regard to the formulation and implementation of effective policies to remedy food insecurity and vulnerability, and poverty.
Most information on food insecurity and vulnerability is provided as text and tables, with graphs, diagrams and maps used much less frequently. Maps for data presentation are powerful visual aids in understanding the spatial incidence of food insecurity and vulnerability, and poverty, and this can be a major tool in raising political support.
Major indicators related to food insecurity and vulnerability, such as infant mortality rate, under-five mortality rate and maternal mortality rate, are used in almost all country reports, which is in line with recommendations in CIF and MDG. Some reports specify child malnutrition in terms of stunting, wasting and underweight. Food Production and dietary energy supply (DES) are used in about half of the CCA reports, but they are virtually absent in the PRSPs. More than half of the CCA reports and one-third of the PRSPs use a combination of different indicators. This is a more preferable way of capturing the different dimensions of the problem.
Both CCA reports and PRSPs use three to four poverty indicators, which is in line with recommendations in CIF and MDG. The extent to which some indicators are used, however, contrasts with recommendations. For example, the percentage of household income spent on food for the poorest quintile is used in all PRSPs analysed, but in only 10 percent of the CCA reports, while the poverty gap ratio and the share of the poorest quintile in national consumption remain almost unused.
The widespread use of one or more indicators that may be relevant as such, but nevertheless do not provide a comprehensive perspective, indicates that possibly more relevant data is available than stated. This is despite the availability of various frameworks on food security, such as CIF, and the FIVIMS conceptual framework (FAO, 1998).
50 percent of the CCA reports and 20 percent of the PRSPs make implicit use of models to explain food insecurity and vulnerability issues, but model descriptions are absent in all but a few cases. Absence of models could imply that no explanations for food insecurity and vulnerability are given, but 80 percent of the CCA reports and 40 percent of the PRSPs in fact provide explanations. However, the explanations contain only a few components of the various comprehensive conceptual frameworks available, such as the one introduced by FIVIMS. The explanations provided point mostly to the socio-economic and political environment, (stability of) food supply and access, care practices, health and sanitation, and food consumption and utilization, and here the CCA reports provide more explanations than the PRSPs.
Food insecurity is linked to poverty in most reports and linkages are mentioned with other areas, such as human rights, gender and HIV/Aids. Most of the explanations offered and linkages made are, however, not supported by analyses and are of a qualitative and descriptive nature.
Policies to reduce food insecurity and vulnerability are stated in about 50 percent of the country reports, and poverty eradication policies are stated in 73 percent of the country reports. Approximately 50 percent of the country reports contain separate policies for food insecurity and vulnerability and for poverty eradication, although both policies focus on largely the same segment of the population.
Strategies - the stage between policies and interventions - are proposed in 86 percent of the CCA reports and in 96 percent of the PRSPs. Generally, a combination of strategies is stated, and in 45 percent of the country reports this combination of strategies covers the three broad fields of socio-economic and political environment, food consumption, and health and care. Although PRSPs state more strategies in all of the three fields, the CCA reports and the PRSPs show a remarkable concurrence in strategies.
Both CCA reports and PRSPs state fewer interventions than strategies, 34 percent and 48 percent respectively. The interventions in both types of reports cover equally the socio-economic and political environment, food consumption, and health and care.
The review of the components of the policy analysis cycle in the foregoing paragraphs leaves one major question unanswered. Does the identification of food insecurity and vulnerability as a development priority in a country result in a clear analysis, in formulating policies and strategies, and finally in interventions aimed at reducing food insecurity and vulnerability in that country? The review of these components within the individual countries, stated in Chapter 4, shows a general absence of any consistent pattern among these dimensions of a policy analysis. The conclusion must be that the CCA reports and the PRSPs give broad attention to food insecurity and vulnerability, and poverty, but do not reflect systematic efforts aimed at alleviation of these problems.
|
[3] TOR checklist items 1 and
2. [4] The presence of an interim PRSP is a necessary condition for the qualification of debt relief. [5] TOR checklist items 2, 3 and 5. [6] TOR checklist item 4. [7] TOR checklist items 9, 12 and 14. [8] TOR checklist items 6, 7, 8 and 15. [9] TOR checklist items 10 and 11. [10] TOR checklist items 13. [11] TOR checklist items 16 and 17. [12] TOR checklist items 18 and 19. [13] TOR checklist items 17 and 18. |
